When a church closes its doors for the last time, it can be a gut-wrenching, emotional experience for the community. A place that once held peonies at weddings, poinsettias at Christmas time and lilies at Easter will now begin to grow weeds in the cracks of its walls.

Such is the fate of many European churches; dozens are now being closed and sold every year. A century ago Europe was the hub of Christianity, but data indicates that Christian influence might be on the decline. Pew Research predicts that the percentage of Europeans who identify as Christians will steadily fall from 74.5% in 2010 to 65.2% in 2050. Despite this drop, however, it appears that Christianity will still be the majority religion of the continent for quite a while.

Identifying with a religion and practicing a religion are two entirely different concepts, and the latter is much harder to measure. There may be a high number of Europeans who identify as Christians, but the continent-wide trend of closing churches may be an indication of a severe dip in those who actively practice. However, the image of dirty, stained-glass windows and unkempt altars is a stark contrast to images of Christianity in the media, such as the Pope reaching into politics and Christian nonprofits at the forefront of refugee aid.

European Christianity is now at a turning point in its history. Secular media, fueled by the pope’s political prominence and Christian efforts in the migrant crisis, is bringing the church back into the spotlight—and it desperately needs the attention. Though the fate of the church in Europe is unclear, increased visibility through the media is perhaps indicative of an upswing.

Pope Francis’s popularity with the people and the media is an example of the still pervasive influence that Christianity has in Europe and across the globe. Though the Pope is first and foremost the head of the Catholic Church, he is often portrayed as a spiritual figurehead for all of Christianity.

The Catholic leader’s recent negative remarks about Donald Trump sparked a slew of commentary in the United States. Many believe he can mitigate the harms of the Zika virus in South America and Mexico by lifting a ban on contraception. He also recently met with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, the first meeting of its kind since the 11th century, to bring unity to two branches of Christianity.

Some consider that the current Pope is perhaps too political, but historically the  Pope has been more influential in Europe than any political figure. After all, it was Pope Urban II that started the crusades, not a secular monarch. Only in the last two centuries has the Pope’s role been dominated by his clerical duties, and despite this, popes have been known to work closely with politicians; Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), for example, spoke out against communism in Poland during the 1980s. Despite concerns that politics could lead the Pope to neglect important clerical duties, he remains an important figurehead for the Catholic Church and Catholicism throughout the world.

With the pope renewing discussions about the Catholic Church, another sign of hope for churches in Europe is the media coverage of churches opening their doors for refugees. Since the start of 2016 over 82 thousand migrants, predominately from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, have reached Europe, and the pope has urged the European religious community to accommodate the refugees. However, some nationalist Christian politicians are using the refugee crisis to fear monger and push their own agendas. In Italy, Matteo Slavini, Catholic leader of the Northern League party, has pushed a nationalist agenda against the migrants in clear disapproval of the pope’s message. But Nunzio Galantino, a prominent Italian bishop, has spoken out against politicians like Salvini for using the crisis to stir up xenophobia.

Despite the divisive ideas of such politicians, Christianity appears to be predominately a force of good in Europe’s handling of the migrant crisis. Encouraged by the pope’s direct order, Catholic churches across Europe are encouraging their members to aid refugees. Protestants and Catholics alike have responded by taking in migrants to protect them from deportation. The Vatican itself has taken in two refugee families. Additionally, Caritas, a Catholic non-profit, has been particularly involved; it hosts a third of Austria’s asylum seekers and is now soliciting homeowners in Belgium to rent out property to refugees.  

In a more unexpected turn, many European churches have seen some of these refugees seeking comfort in, and in some cases conversion to, Christianity. Germany, a country expected to receive up to a million migrants this year, is witnessing a particularly high rise in Islam-to-Christianity conversions. This influx of new Christians is providing a small yet notable boost to church membership, which has been on the decline in Germany for some time.

However, some are concerned that not all of these migrants are seeking conversion for spiritual reasons. German authorities, for example, can grant asylum for migrants who are persecuted at home. If a migrant can demonstrate that they wish to convert to Christianity and are therefore in danger of persecution in their own country, they could take advantage of this law. Therefore their conversion once in Europe may not be for exclusively spiritual reasons.

The pope’s popularity has the potential to bring Catholics back into the Church. However there are many who still question his motives and efficacy. The church’s open-door policy might inspire a new wave of practicing Catholics, but it also gives nationalist politicians a new venue for racism.

The good does seem to outweigh the bad. However, converted refugees aren’t enough to re-populate Europe’s lost churches, nor is one pope powerful enough to re-vitalize a religion. But perhaps the best thing for the church right now is visibility, and they certainly aren’t lacking in that department.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post The Christian Church in Europe: Empty Pews and a Pop Culture Pope appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The title of the piece was “Irish Anxiety: Economic Dependence in an Independent Country.” Since this article, the disbandment of the Eurozone has become less of a concern. However, an economic bust is still a possibility, and the UK leaving the EU is becoming an even more serious threat. The IMF recently released a report indicating that a Brexit could cause instability in trade flows between Britain and the rest of the EU, including Ireland. Another report by Irish stockbroking firm Merrion indicates that a Brexit could cut bilateral trade flows between Ireland and the UK by 20%.

The fears surrounding a Brexit are only one example of Ireland’s dependence on the European Union and it’s member countries. The island country has heavily leaned on the Union since it first joined.

Ireland became a part of the European Economic Community in 1973 (which then became the European Union in 1991). At the time, Ireland was relatively insignificant economically, having only separated from the United Kingdom about fifty years prior. The choice to join the EEC was an effort to boost a waning economy — which had been predominately secluded from the rest of Europe — by increasing exports to other European countries. The European Commission, the executive branch of the EU, has continued to significantly bolster the Irish economy in recent years.

Take, for example, Dublin’s “Temple Bar” district. Before 1991, the area was one of the most run-down in Dublin. The European Commission then invested 47 million euros in to re-building Temple Bar both physically and economically, and now the area is known to be Dublin’s center for tourism, entertainment and nightlife.

The money from the Commission was used to make more pedestrian-friendly walkways and signage, fund business growth, create parks and instate important cultural institutions. For example, the fund created a new Viking museum, Dublina, a children’s theater, The Ark, and a film institute.

This beautiful park was also a part of the Temple Bar revival project —it was designed to be a helicopter landing site and now is a beautiful hideaway behind the Dublin Castle.

The EU has also invested heavily in Dublin’s light rail system, which is integral to the city. It invested over 42 million euros in re-vitalizing Dublin’s public transportation, creating the red and green lines still in function today. Below is a photo is of the Green Line station by St. Stephen’s Park.

The EU has funded many other less-photographable initiatives in Ireland, the full list of which can be found here. The European Commission also boasts major growth in Ireland since its ascendance to the EU, including a 90 times increase in trade, 700,000 new jobs and an increase in foreign investment from 16 to 30 million euros.

The Eurozone’s large impact in Dublin and the rest of Ireland further reinforces the irony of its independence. Yes, the country has technically been autonomous for nearly a century, but without money and services from the EU, it is unclear as to whether it could support itself. It can even be argued that Ireland wouldn’t exist independently without the 85 billion euro bailout it received from the European Central Bank in 2010. So while Ireland spent this past Easter celebrating 100 years of its independent rule, it should also give thanks to its friends in the EU for its current economic success.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post Reflecting on Irish Anxiety: The EU’s Presence in Dublin Through Photos appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Last month, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation decided in a 4-1 vote that growing marijuana for personal consumption is a human right. Four activists – founders of the Mexican Society for Responsible and Tolerant Personal Use – served as plaintiffs in the case. Though the ruling technically only applies to the four of them, the case is sure to set a precedent and contribute to the Mexican legislation’s debate about legalizing medical marijuana.

This is a rather ironic twist in the drug war—typically it is American decisions on drug enforcement that have a grave impact on Mexican society, oftentimes encouraging corruption and gang violence. But if Mexico legalizes marijuana, the war on drugs could take a turn for the better. Marijuana is only a fraction of the drug trade between the United States and Mexico, but it is still a large business. Roughly 40% of the $100 billion Americans spend on illegal drugs is spent on illegal marijuana.

It is estimated that over 60,000 people were killed in Mexico between 2006 and 2012 from drug-related violence, with an additional 26,121 disappearances. The drug war has devastated families and businesses in Mexico for years—the LA Time’s ongoing expose, “Mexico Under Siege”, shows graphic examples of the damage. Drug cartels rule much of Mexico and have infiltrated high levels of government for the sole purpose of getting a hand in the US drug trade. Such corruption has become an integral part of Mexico, so much so that it is believed drug lord El Chapo escaped a maximum-security prison only with the help of high-ranking officials.

The United States has been waging a failed war on drugs for over a century. In the past decade, drug use has been relatively stable (if not on the rise for certain demographics/drugs), but policy has barely budged. Policy highlights include mandatory minimums that put non-violent criminals in prison for life and the Controlled Substances Act, which labels marijuana just as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than cocaine.

The United States’ repeated failure with marijuana policy has directly increased violence and corruption in Mexico. Drugs succeed on a simple supply and demand system. If Americans want drugs, someone will produce and supply them. The most immediate concern shouldn’t be to limit consumption, then, but how to make it such that Americans can safely obtain desired substances without causing destruction in the supplying country.

Medical concerns aside, the most surefire way to eliminate an underground market is to take it above ground. And the United States seems to be leaning in the right direction with its policy of marijuana legalization. Medical marijuana is legal in 24 states plus Washington, DC, and recreational usage is legal in five states. Experts believe that the more states that legalize marijuana, the more the drug will be grown legitimately and locally instead of trafficked in by Mexican cartels; US border control seized 1.9 million pounds in 2014, a giant drop from 2.5 million pounds in 2011.

Still, marijuana isn’t legal federally, and most states aren’t quite ready to adopt recreational marijuana, which makes production and distribution legally tricky.

Mexico, on the other hand, doesn’t have to jump through quite as many hoops to pass laws. It may appear as though Mexico is taking baby steps with the recent ruling, but the country has the ability to push through marijuana legislation much faster than the US. The glaring roadblock for legalization in Mexico will be the cartels and the corrupt officials who represent their interests. It is in the cartels’ best interest to keep drugs illegal—and they wield a lot of silent power in Mexico.

Luckily, Mexico’s Supreme Court is able to bypass the government and directly affect law. To do so, they must address four cases similar to the recent ruling, and with this win confirmed that doesn’t seem entirely unlikely. There are concerns that the most recent nominee to the court is in the pocket of the PRI and President Nieto, but the Supreme Court is potentially the least corrupt of Mexico’s branches of government.

If in fact that is true, then a review of the four cases necessary to legalize marijuana consumption becomes more probable. From there the Supreme Court could take on cases of growth and sale, thus legitimizing local growers and taking power away from the cartels.

The quickest way to end marijuana’s role in the drug war would be to decriminalize marijuana production and consumption in the United States entirely, but the legal and political climate makes this highly unlikely. So, it would be in the US’s best interest to start by supporting the legalization of marijuana in Mexico. Yes, it could create a larger supply to funnel across the border. But even a marginal decrease in cartel power would save hundreds of lives in Mexico and millions of dollars in the US. Not to mention it would give the US a sizeable case study on the effects of fully legalized recreational marijuana for sociological and medical research.

The war on drugs cannot be won in a matter of years. Anti-drug policies with harsh sentences have been in place for decades, as have the cartels. But any step towards legalization lowers violence, and that ought to be the first priority for both the United States and Mexico.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post How Mexican Marijuana Could Save Lives appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

It’s debate season in the United States, which also means it’s the season for exasperated threats of moving to Denmark if this or the other candidate wins. Left-wing sweetheart Bernie Sanders is particularly enamored with the Scandinavian country. Sanders has praised Denmark in the past for its progressive policies on free education and healthcare, as well as subsidized childcare. The country is also known for having paid leave for mothers and an on-average happier populace.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with comparing countries. In fact, it is important that we examine social and economic progress elsewhere to monitor policies at home. However, progress and growth in other countries cannot be examined via an “us vs. them” rationale, especially in the context of policy.

Critics of Sanders and his agenda attack his love for Denmark with statistics about taxation rates, GDP and demographics, essentially re-iterating Hilary Clinton’s eloquent “we are not Denmark” response to Bernie’s Europhilia—which is in many respects a valid point. However, just as the United States is more than its GDP, we must examine Denmark as more than a few statistics. For example, take the Danish higher education system.

Denmark’s higher education programs are all, in fact, free. Granted, free is a relative term given high tax rates and cost of living, but if you are an EU or EEA citizen, there is no tuition. This applies even to art and trade schools.

So much scholarship and grant money is offered to cover living expenses that some Danish students are essentially paid to go to college. The State Educational Grant and Loan Scheme (SU), for instance, offers at least some financial support for all Danes, regardless of socioeconomic standing. All Danish college students not independent from their parents are eligible to receive about $900 per month under the SU. Students can receive the funding for up to six years while they are in school, and students who are particularly successful can apply for more funding.

This model particularly appeals to parents, students and adults still paying off debts from ridiculously priced American universities. Even public universities aren’t free in the US, and the average American graduating college in 2015 will have $35,000 of student debt.

A study¹ on higher education in welfare states by the University of Amsterdam neatly summarizes the differences between education in the US and Denmark with the “Decommodification Index.” Decommodification refers to a utility’s independence from the market; the more decommodified, the more it is viewed as an entitlement. For education, the study measured public expenditure on higher education, the share of public expenditure on higher education, enrollment, average tuition fees and the student loan/grant system. The study found that Denmark and the US are the most polarized of the countries studied: Denmark has a Decommodification Index of .97 and the United States has a -1.01 (the Index is a measure of z-scores with a mean of 0, determined by all the above factors of decommodification; all countries received between a -1 to 1 score except the US).

Practically what this means is that Danish students view higher education not as something to work hard for, but something to which they are entitled. While many in the United States work several jobs to get through college, for many Danes college is their job.

There are some that worry that this entitlement is actually hurting Denmark’s economy. The Danish government pays for all kinds of education, and as such, many students are opting for arts and humanities programs over more technical careers. The number of students in Denmark contemplating a career in engineering is only one-third of the OCED average despite booming opportunities for engineers. A few technical companies such as Novozumes, Lego and Coloplast have felt the need to launch advertising campaigns just to win students to the field.

The idea of free education sounds ideal: no more student loans, the ability to focus on studies instead of jobs to make ends meet and no reliance on family or friends. But Americans who want to start marching down the free education path must look at the larger picture: the US is not Denmark.

Electing a president who believes in free education is great in theory, but let’s take Clinton’s statement and consider the logistics. Denmark gets its money for higher education from extraordinarily high taxes. In order to make college free in its current state, the US government would have to hike taxes by an unprecedented amount. (The US would need an additional $160 billion per year to cover the total revenue brought in by state schools in 2012 from non-state sources.) And unlike Denmark, a centralized constitutional monarchy with a fairly homogenous population fifty-seven times smaller than the size of the United States, the US must pass every idea by three branches of government and fifty states. A presidential executive order wouldn’t work here.

Besides the practical difficulties, there is an ideological question of whether the Danish model is compatible with what many Americans perceive to be the core of American values: independent hard work. If a welfare program is what the US wants, it must be willing to sacrifice some of that mentality.

The solution then is to stop using hyperbolic rhetoric. Copying Denmark entirely isn’t feasible. That being said, copying little bits is. The United States could be well served by taking a look at some of Denmark’s student grant and loans programs. It would also be well served by looking at some of Denmark’s other successful programs, such as healthcare and drug policy. True, the US is not Denmark. But that doesn’t mean the two countries can’t learn from each other.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

1. Willemse, N., and P. De Beer. “Three Worlds of Educational Welfare States? A Comparative Study of Higher Education Systems across Welfare States.” Journal of European Social Policy, 2012, 105-17.

The post American Apologetics and Danish Red Herrings appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On the first of June, my family took our first cab of the vacation from Dublin Airport to our hotel in the city center. After exchanging small talk about the weather, my father asked the driver about the Irish economy. ‘It’s a joke’ he responded, laughing. He then explained that his daughter and her husband were denied financing on a home because their jobs – which they’d held for five years – had yearlong renewal terms. This denial, as well as a number of other financial woes, had led the couple to conclude that in order to afford Ireland later in life, they needed to move to Canada to make some money first.

My father then asked the cabbie whether, knowing what he knows now about Ireland’s economy, he would have wanted to switch from the Irish pound to the Euro in 1999. He emphatically responded, “No.”

Despite pervasive popular cynicism over the economy, Ireland’s GDP is expected to grow 6.5% this year; things are looking up for the Irish.  But before drawing any rash conclusions on what the current economy implies about Ireland’s future, Ireland’s strong historical ties to the economies of other countries should be examined.

The Irish currency converged with the British pound sterling in 1826. The Republic of Ireland declared independence from Britain in 1922, and the Irish pound was established with the Currency Act, 1927. Despite political independence, the Irish pound was still linked directly to sterling and was backed by the British banks. In 1978, Ireland joined the European Monetary System and the UK did not; when sterling boomed at a rate faster than any currency in the new European Monetary System, Ireland was forced to sever its ties with the British pound.

Ireland toyed with joining the Economic and Monetary Union throughout the ‘90s, one of its primary concerns being whether the UK would also join.  Many economists made “with the UK” and “without the UK” synonymous with “pro” and “con”, even though both scenarios appeared to benefit Ireland’s economy. In 1999, the Economic and Monetary Union Act declared that Ireland’s official currency would be the Euro.

Meanwhile, Ireland’s economy had been growing into the formidable “Celtic Tiger.” Between the years of 1993 and 2000, average GDP annual growth was close to 10%.

As with most extreme booms, however, Ireland’s came with a heavy bust. Property prices began to dip in 2006, and when the United States’ market crashed in 2008, Ireland’s burned. The country became the second Euro-zone state behind Greece to accept a bailout from the EU and IMF.

Today, Ireland’s economy is ostensibly growing, as are most EU countries that have received bailouts (the odd one out being Greece, of course). But the Irish are still walking a tightrope. In order to stay afloat in the next decade, the Irish have to dodge three possible disasters: crashing their own economy, the UK leaving the EU and the Eurozone disbanding.

The first threat, another crash similar to the death of the Celtic Tiger, is domestic and hopefully more easily avoided. According to “Ireland’s Competitiveness Scorecard 2015” by the National Competitiveness Council, Ireland needs to double their current efforts – increasing tourism and exporting businesses, for example – to become a financially competitive nation.  The council’s chair, Peter Clinch, worries that much of Ireland’s recent growth is due to lower oil prices and a weaker Euro. These temporarily positive yet unstable factors hide Ireland’s underlying issues: a high-cost destination for businesses, high unemployment rates, poor labor force performance and limited exports. Ireland is not currently on a trajectory towards failure, but if the country is too busy celebrating its momentary gains, it will collapse just like in 2008.

The second scenario is the UK leaving the EU. Britain’s Prime Minster, David Cameron, ran his last campaign on a promise to put the UK’s membership in the EU to a vote. The referendum will take place by the end of 2017. Cameron is pushing to merely fight for reform, but there are many politicians calling to pull out of the EU entirely. The Irish Times claims that a “Brexit” from the EU “could irrevocably damage Ireland’s agricultural trade with Britain and cause an outflow of business from Dublin’s financial services centre,” which would seriously wound the Irish economy.

The Irish have made strong attempts to cut ties with England, as evidenced by the brief Irish currency history laid out above, but the Irish economy still depends heavily on trade with the British. Experts believe that if the UK were to leave the EU, they would set up a free-trade deal similar to that of Switzerland and Norway. To survive, the Irish would need to have a front-row seat at that negotiation to ensure that agricultural trade is maintained between the two countries. This front-row seat is far from guaranteed, however, because while the UK values trade with Ireland, Ireland relies on it; 34% Ireland’s imports come from the UK, but Ireland is only the UK’s fifth largest export market.

In addition, Dublin’s International Financial Services Center (IFSC) is kept busy largely by London’s status as a financial capital of Europe. London’s financial power could be threatened by an exit from the Eurozone, thereby threatening the IFSC.

Finally, there is the possibility that maybe the entire Eurozone idea wasn’t viable from the get-go. Most calls for disbandment of the Eurozone are extremist ones, but the problems facing the currency bloc right now are vast and serious. The Irish are keenly aware of how a Greek exit from the Eurozone would have directly affected them, including a loss of €350 million on a loan extended to the Greeks in a preliminary round of bailouts. The turmoil with Greece has also left corporations feeling wary about the Euro, leading to investment outside of the Eurozone. Moreover, Europe is still struggling with populists who aren’t the Euro’s biggest fans. Without the Euro in 2008, Ireland might not have recovered as quickly as they did. It is unclear whether an economy as small as theirs would be able to make as quick of a recovery as other countries with a historically well-established currency if the Eurozone were to disband.

Ireland, then, is left in a state of anxiety. While each of these events may be unlikely as standalones, the probability of one of them happening in the next decade is high enough to put the country on alert, especially considering that they can’t really do anything to prevent two of the three. Seeing as Ireland only functioned on its own currency for 23 years prior to the Euro, their state of anxiety is justified.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Irish Anxiety: Economic Dependence in an Independent Country appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

93-year-old Oskar Groening pushed his walker into a German court in April of this year to testify in the opening of his trial. Known by the media as the “accountant of Auschwitz,” Groening has confirmed that he collected money and goods from Auschwitz prisoners. He has also testified that he witnessed violence in Auschwitz and requested to transfer locations, but the request was denied.

“I share morally in the guilt but whether I am guilty under criminal law, you will have to decide,” Groening told the court at the end at his hour-long testimony. He was said to appear sound and healthy at the stand, barring occasional breaks to cough and drink water.

His official charge is 300,000 counts of accessory to murder, which could sentence him to prison for up to fifteen years. In the past, German prosecutors could only charge Nazi guards if they could prove the guard committed a crime against a specific person, a particularly harrowing notion if you consider guards who left no one alive to testify against them. Today, guards can be charged as an accessory as long as there’s evidence confirming their service thanks to a 2011 case that convicted 91-year-old John Demjanuk.

Demjanjuk fought charges against his involvement in the Holocaust for three decades before he died in a German nursing home at the age of 91. In his 1986 trial in Israel, he was sentenced to death before Soviet documents (temporarily) cleared his name. The same documents, however, gave prosecutors grounds to take him to trial again in Munich in 2011 where he was convicted of 28,060 counts of accessory to murder. The court ultimately determined that Demjamjuk was a Nazi guard at the Sobibor death camp and responsible for guiding prisoners to death chambers.

The charges and evidence against Demjanjuk were legally hazy (the only tangible evidence being the aforementioned Soviet documents) and his best efforts to appear frail and old didn’t make a permanent verdict easier for the court. He was released pending an appeal before his death.

The key difference between Demjanjuk and Groening – besides the fact that Demjanjuk was under international scrutiny for much longer – is that Groening is much harder to hate. Demjanjuk feigned illness, tried to avoid extradition and denied being a guard. Groening, however, spoke openly about his time in Auschwitz prior to being charged, and has been forthcoming in court thus far.

Holocaust survivors and their families appear torn on how to handle Groening’s trial. There are 60 of them testifying as co-plaintiffs, including Auschwitz survivor Max Eisen. Eisen initially didn’t think sending a 93-year-old to prison would serve any purpose, but he has since changed his narrative saying that during the trial, “I was just thinking about my baby sister and mother in the gas chamber. This upset me so much.”

Eisen’s change of heart illustrates how trials like Groening’s unintentionally re-victimize victims. Emotional collateral damage is inevitable in trials that bring up long past tragedies. However, these trials are more symbolic than anything, and their main purpose is rooted in Germany’s self-redemption operation. The fact that Groening’s charge is 300,000 counts of accessory to murder indicates that the court’s target is the holistic crime of the Holocaust, not the individual guard.

The Germans have been trying to take penance for Nazi crimes into their own hands ever since the Nuremberg trials, in which the Allied powers had control over the sentencing of major Nazi criminals. The Frankfurt Auschwitz trials in the late sixties saw the Germans taking legal efforts of their own, retrospectively investigating and charging lesser Nazis that had managed to avoid jail time immediately after the war. Prime Minister Willy Brandt’s 1970 silent apology, “Kniefall,” proved to the international community the country’s deep remorse. Germany’s postwar policies of giving out tens of billions of dollars to survivors and practicing pacifism on the world stage show their efforts to change the image of their country.

Even so, a rise in Holocaust deniers threatens both the legacy postwar Germany has tried to leave and the harsh reality of genocides. Although Germany and several other European countries have laws against denying the holocaust, a 2014 study indicates that 11% of Western Europeans who are aware of the Holocaust believe that it has not been “accurately portrayed.” Holocaust denial is much stronger in the Middle East and North Asia; of the 32% of the population that has heard about it, 64% believe that it has not been accurately portrayed. The words of Spanish philosopher George Santayana, “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” are particularly haunting today, when Holocaust denial is at an alarmingly high rate and an entire country, Turkey, is denying the Armenian genocide. On top of all that, neo-Nazism, though condemned by the general public, still has a vocal presence in many Western European countries, particularly in Greece.

The logical extreme of deniers and neo-Nazis gaining ground in Western Europe is another genocide, although that extreme is probably unlikely. However, in order to ensure that unlikeliness, it is crucial that the few surviving witnesses of the Holocaust speak up, particularly if they were Nazis at the time.

Survivor and co-plaintiff Eva Kor received media attention for hugging and publicly forgiving Groening. Kor believes that German healing would be best accomplished by asking still living Nazis to speak to the public about their crimes. She hopes that honest confrontation of the past would deter Holocaust deniers.

In Kor’s words, “I forgave the Nazis not because they deserve it but because I deserve it.” Though Kor cannot speak for all Holocaust survivors, her words do show that survivors are capable of creating their own personal justice; such justice is not always the court’s to create.

Groening’s trial sets a dangerous precedent for how countries deal with genocides long after they occur. Surely, Groening is no longer a threat to society. While it is understandable that many see his trial as justice running its course, perhaps what Germany needs is a strong message against those who try to diminish the terrors of the Holocaust, not the few dying men that played a small role in it.

The precedent has already been set, however, and the counts already charged. Naturally, it is not the job of any justice system to forgive transgressions against an individual. But it is within the court’s discretion to show mercy. The German Federal Court of Justice decided in 2006 not to give an “age discount”, or shortened sentence for elderly defendants. However, prison conditions are not conducive to those with serious medical issues, and at 93 it’s likely that Groening would need special attention of some kind. The court has the ability to sentence him for a period of time that would appease the co-plaintiffs who seek prison time and also implement that sentence in a way that would place him in a facility to care for him in his last years.

Though Groening is the same man that witnessed gas chambers and collected belongings of people he knew would never leave Auschwitz, he is also a man who has lived for six decades with heavy guilt. Groening’s case is particularly unique because very few Nazis have spoken to the public about their role in the Holocaust. Before he spoke in court, Groening admitted his involvement for a 2005 BBC documentary series. His confession surely isn’t enough to clear him of all guilt, and given Demjanjuk’s conviction with much less evidence, the court is likely to convict Groening for his involvement in Auschwitz. But perhaps the most meaningful thing he has done in his life is confess what he witnessed and confirm the realities of the Holocaust to those who seek to deny it. In Groening’s own words:

“I see it as my task, now at my age, to face up to these things that I experienced and to oppose the Holocaust deniers who claim that Auschwitz never happened, and that’s why I’m here today. Because I want to tell those deniers I have seen the crematoria. I have seen the burning pits. And I want you to believe me that these atrocities happened. I was there.”

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post The Accountant of Auschwitz: Oskar Groening’s Guilt and Its Role in German Penance appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.